DocEmrick wrote:The NHL isn't unpopular because of fighting, it's unpopular because the U.S likes football, and baseball for that matter.

Moreover, isn't it a little ridiculous to believe that the American sports public is too squeamish to stomach hockey violence when the top two sports in this country are the concussion-factory NFL and NASCAR, where most people are waiting around for a big fiery wreck? Yeah, I'm OK watching a guy maybe break his neck on the football field, but I just can't watch those guys punching each other like that. I'm too fragile.

Exactly. That's what pisses me off. Millions of football fans criticize a couple of punches thrown in a hockey fight. Meanwhile, they'll sit through 4 quarters of guys running into each other, grabbing each other by the rectal area and pulling them down, giving derogatory gestures after scoring, and in general, being incredibly violent. Granted some hockey fights (Bradly/Biz) end up nastier than others, but I don't see how an entire game based on violence can criticize a game based on speed, agility and other skills.

Last edited by DocEmrick on Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

so i don't know. i think penguins fans lives were made much much better last year because of fighting. keep it coming.

I agree. The Kennedy fight was my favorite as well. I think the root of the problem here is the guys like Laraque and Godard. The guys who fight just to fight. Malone fought to swing momentum, and towards the end of the season it actually started to work. I remember several instances where we'd score minutes after he fought somebody on the other team. The fights like Kennedy, Roberts, etc are fights of necessity though, I think they're needed to protect your players. It just seemed Laraque was trying to make a living. And Godard is just f'n insane.

so i don't know. i think penguins fans lives were made much much better last year because of fighting. keep it coming.

I agree. The Kennedy fight was my favorite as well. I think the root of the problem here is the guys like Laraque and Godard. The guys who fight just to fight. Malone fought to swing momentum, and towards the end of the season it actually started to work. I remember several instances where we'd score minutes after he fought somebody on the other team. The fights like Kennedy, Roberts, etc are fights of necessity though, I think they're needed to protect your players. It just seemed Laraque was trying to make a living. And Godard is just f'n insane.

yeah, the middle weight fights actually mean something. the fights above were in almost direct response to an incident or a series of incidents. it's guys like ^ need their butts handed to them. not mcgratton/orr/cote/parros who are only playing like 3 minutes a game and can't catch up to guys like sid long enough to do anything stupid.

I should have known not to click the link to this story when I was reading the PG this morning online. Bozo writes an anti-fighting column about once a year. He is almost as annoying as those "Save by Zero" commercials Toyota is running.

he said "seldom used" paul bissonnette...how about rookie enforcer paul bissonnette? or first year tough guy paul bissonnette? of cours eh is seldom used, if this is his first year cracking the NHL roster! and please, fighting is an exciting and passionate aspect of hockey....aside from laraque's fights....how would it turn anyone off from watching?

bill from turtle creek wrote:The silliness of the scripted Cote/Godard fight of the other night, though, is that neither of those guys even looked at the other guy for the rest of the night. Cote, in fact, barely played.

The Cote/Godard fight ended up having zero effect on the game, like most fights in hockey do. Would you rather have them settle it in a fight, or a high-stick to the face?

bill from turtle creek wrote:The silliness of the scripted Cote/Godard fight of the other night, though, is that neither of those guys even looked at the other guy for the rest of the night. Cote, in fact, barely played.

The Cote/Godard fight ended up having zero effect on the game, like most fights in hockey do. Would you rather have them settle it in a fight, or a high-stick to the face?

I'd rather have two guys who can play dress in their place.

I agree. Don't get me wrong I love a good fight, but if it were banned I think the game would be better

Skeletons of Quinto wrote:Smizik again shows that he possesses the reasoning and logic of a five year old.

FallacySome A are BB is useless------Therefore, get rid of A

Look, I see the absurdity in the scripted heavyweight bouts that occur in the NHL. Do I think they're useless? Sure. They rarely have an outcome on the game. Laraque, the heavyweight champ, spent time in Phoenix when they were in the toilet. However, I don't see a reason to get rid of these types of fights. There is a huge demographic of NHL fans that love them (see hockeyfights.com). Abolishing those types of fights would, in my estimation, alienate far more established fans than it would entice new ones to watch games.

Moreover, Smizik fails to recognize that some fights actually do serve a legitimate purpose. Aside from fighters (not using the word "enforcers" here because that term is typically relegated to the likes of Godard, Laraque etc.) protecting star players - which does occur, no matter how much you'd like to deny it- a good fight can spark a team. For instance, Ruutu's slugfest with Tucker last season was a turning point in that game. Smizik fails to differentiate the latter type of fight from the pre-determined heavyweight frays.

As an aside, if there really are prospective fans out there who shy away from the NHL because of fighting, what's next? If there are people drawn to the game due to abolition of fighting, aren't we fairly close to an anti-checking lobby, as well?

Leave the game alone. It's fine.

Awesome Post!

I was talking about this same subject with a friend of mine during the Pens/Laffs game. He does not watch hockey and has only seen 1 game live. He saw how into it I was and started asking questions about the game.

When it was 3-1 Pens halfway through the 3rd he said he wanted to see a fight. I told him that the odds were very low that would happen. He asked why and I explained fighting in the NHL, just like the quoted poster above did.

Moreover, Smizik fails to recognize that some fights actually do serve a legitimate purpose. Aside from fighters (not using the word "enforcers" here because that term is typically relegated to the likes of Godard, Laraque etc.) protecting star players - which does occur, no matter how much you'd like to deny it- a good fight can spark a team. For instance, Ruutu's slugfest with Tucker last season was a turning point in that game. Smizik fails to differentiate the latter type of fight from the pre-determined heavyweight frays.

I told him, after explaining why and when fights happen, that with the game being 3-1 with only 10 minutes left that there was less a need for a fight then there was for an offensive push. A fight at that stage could slow the game down too much for you to net 2.

Fighting is a part of the game and not always senseless head punching.

I love hockey, but I hate the fights that are as scripted as texas chain matches like wwe/f /c. So when these occur I remain sitting and watch the fans reactions. Last week and in many instances there is always a photo of the fight from a game. No photo of a great save from Flower. I never see hockey fights leaving the game, but I do choose to ignore.

bill from turtle creek wrote:I would be willing to concur that the middleweight fights mean something, generally. Except for Bissonette's fight recently. That meant absolutely nothing, except to Bissonette's parents and fiance.

Completely disagree on the Biz-Bradley fight meaning nothing. Bradley dropped the gloves to try to spark his team. That fight I believe was pretty close to the time that the Craps scored thier first goal of the night.

Bradley is an energy guy. He wants to create a spark for his team either through a big hit or maybe a fight. Bradley is not a particularly good fighter...he more of a punching bag. His team while not playing bad found itself down 3-0. Bradley didn't drop the gloves for a sideshow act to get his name in the paper. He was using a fight to change momentum.

Mosby wrote:Bradley is an energy guy. He wants to create a spark for his team either through a big hit or maybe a fight. Bradley is not a particularly good fighter...he more of a punching bag. His team while not playing bad found itself down 3-0. Bradley didn't drop the gloves for a sideshow act to get his name in the paper. He was using a fight to change momentum.

The fight happened right after the Caps' first goal. No other goals were scored for almost an entire period. The Caps had 5 shots in the second period. Bradley didn't change anything, he just bled.

bill from turtle creek wrote:I still say it didn't mean anything. Bradley gets his face split in half, and you think that helped the Caps score their first goal?

You don't understand the game and how momentum works huh? That fight was to try to get a spark for his team. Like I said alot of fights are like that. Look at the one I posted about MacIntyre and Prust and what Moreau said.

I understand momentum quite well, thank you. And that fight generated none, save for the downward trickle of blood that seemed to be picking up speed quite nicely as the loser skated off the ice.